The TLC show Sister Wives

[Pepband_Mom]

I quit watching that show; it’s premise is awful. I found these people likable individuals (but lost) & in the end, did not want to boost their viewership, help their ratings.

Besides it started messing with my head. Lesson learned.:hypno:

 

[RebeccaJ]

I appreciate your perspective–and perhaps I can give you mine as a Mormon. I do believe it is immoral for a couple of reasons. The primary reason is what defines the difference between marriage, fornication and adultery–and that’s one of the primary reasons the LDS Church (and I believe the Catholic Church) have expended such efforts in stopping gay marriage from being sanctioned by the government. “Husband” and “wife” are legal, gender specific terms. Anciently, God allowed for men to have more than one wife. Abraham did not commit adultery with Hagar because she was his wife. On the other hand, David did commit adultery with Bathsheba because she was not his wife.

Western definitions of marriage come from the Catholic/Christian culture that defined the West. Polygamy is prohibits in Christian cultures because Jesus reenforced marriage as between one man and one woman, as it was in the beginning. God allowed polygamy. It was never commanded.

The promise given to Abraham of a son was not fulfilled in his relationship with Hagar. His going to her shows a lack of patience and faith in God.

Christians are obligated to obey the law of the land as well as the law of God. (Romans 13:4-6).

Secular laws do not define morality. We have no obligation to follow secular law when it goes against Chriatian moral law.

In the 1800’s, when Mormons sought to establish polygamy, they met with strong opposition from the government. Mormons challenged the laws, the challenges went to the Supreme Court and when the Court ruled against the practice Mormons acquiesced and dropped polygamy as a practice. Thirty years later, people calling themselves “fundamentalists” rejected that concept and tried to continue to practice polygamy. They were and are ejected from the Church on the basis that they are not practicing polygamy, but rather adultery.

Bigamy has always been illegal in the U.S.

Brigham Young most certainly held the view that the laws given to the covenant people (himself and his followers) were higher laws than the laws of the land.

The FLDS and other polygamist Mormons don’t view Woodruff’s revelation contained in the Manifesto as a revelation, but as a politically expediant document.

They view the LDS church as apostate believing John Taylor was the last true prophet. Their line of succession follows from there. It didn’t take them 30 years to reject Woodruff’s revelation, they always rejected it, and believed that once Utah became a state that it would pass its own laws, reaffirming polygamy. When it became apparent this wasn’t going to happen they left the LDS church, to continue what they view as living what God has commanded them.

 

[jrtrent]

I appreciate your perspective–and perhaps I can give you mine as a Mormon. I do believe it is immoral for a couple of reasons. . .

Thank you for that well-written reply.

 

[SpeSalvi]

In societies where polygamy is legal, (Egypt, Iran, Iraq) Mormons wouldn’t consider a polygamist Moslem an adulterer; because his polygamy is authorized both by his religion and his government

Just trying to make sure I understand this correctly- does that mean that somewhere that gay marriage is legal and their state religion says it’s okay then gay marriage would be considered licit and moral too?

Call me crazy, but I was under the impression that our God-given Natural Law wasn’t this relative.

 

[mafh]

I think this show and others like it (e.g., Big Love) is part of a well thought-out plan to get Americans accustomed to and comfortable with polygamy, with the deliberate goal of making it legal and socially-acceptable and eventually celebrated by society.

You make a really good point here, about how it could be a process of gradual acclimation of the lifestyle.

There is another possibility that is less sinister, though. I think it may just be society’s current fascination with large families, however they come about. I mean, look at Jon and Kate Plus Eight, 19 Kids and Counting, and the Octomom. I think there are other shows in the big family genre too. Most nuclear families now have 0-3 children, and a lot of parents seem to really micromanage their kids these days. So, I think they are fascinated by seeing how larger families cope. It could just be nothing more than that.

By the way, i love the comic in your sig, Cat, and it brightens my day every time I see it. =)

 

[tarboy]

The fundamental type polygamists in Ut and AZ know how to play the system. They insist they’re marriages are valid in the eyes of their God but then will feign being single mothers in order to get welfare benefits.

When they build a new home, they don’t finish the outside. You’ll see this as homes where the wood structure hasn’t been covered with brick or siding. They do this so they don’t have to pay taxes on the structure, as taxes are only charged on completed structures.

The list of tax evasion and fraud among the UT/AZ fundamentalist groups is long, but UT and AZ are both finally doing something about it.

On the flip side, when a relationship doesn’t work out, there was not a legal marriage and so the rights to shared property has no effect. There was one woman in this situation living behind us many years ago. She had 9 children, and when the polyg father abandoned them, she had nothing and could claim nothing. I’ve read news articles where women in Islam plural marriages, in the U.S., are faced with the same issues.

Tax cheats are scum

I would have hoped they migh get satisfaction following common law marriage rules, and get a fair share of property

 

[RebeccaJ]

Tax cheats are scum

I would have hoped they migh get satisfaction following common law marriage rules, and get a fair share of property

You can’t have a common law marriage with someone if you are already married to someone else.

 

[thomasf]

Those women aren’t really happy, you can see it in their faces. It’s a farce and those women and children are being hurt.

 

[SteveVH]

Just a couple of observations.

I do believe it is immoral for a couple of reasons.

Then what is your opinion of Joseph Smith, your prophet, who started this practice even saying it was a commandment of God?

Christians are obligated to obey the law of the land as well as the law of God.

Not when it violates the law of God. As Catholics we cannot participate in abortion, for instance, even if the state says it is legal. If Joseph Smith truly received this as revelation from God then the Mormons should have stuck with it regardless of the secular consequences. We are facing this very issue today with the government imposing its secular view of contraception and abortion upon the Church. I can tell you, the Catholic Church, and I hope all Catholics, will not bend to this “law of the land”.

So, while fundamentalist polygamists often claim to be “real” Mormons, their unwillingness to obey secular law, and their religious anarchy against canon law makes their actions immoral–because their plural marriages aren’t recognized by society as anything more than shacking up.

Does that help?

No. It is a fundamentally flawed position. Whether it is morally right or wrong is not determined by the state, but by God. Your “canon law” concerning this issue was changed based upon secular law which contradicts the purported revelation received by Joseph Smith. I would be more apt to agree with the “fundamentalist” Mormons on this issue if one truly believes that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. They certainly have more upon which to stand.

 

[Pythons]

Polygamy is just a way for a wayward male to have sex with as many women as he wishes.

Some of his wives work outside the home I believe in order to help support the group.

In other parts of the country, polygamous families are on welfare. So we pay for their lifestyle and children from their multiple marriages. Which aren’t legal anyway.

This is absolutely true - it’s simply a way for a man who wants to have sex with more than one woman the ability to do so…
…I’ve heard Mormons say it’s not at all about the sex - but that’s a total lie.
…Many who practice this form of sexual perversion steal from the Govt via wellfare fraud in any event.

 

[The_Wizard]

Joseph Smith wasn’t the only one who thought it was alright for man to marry more than one woman. Luther also could find not prohibition in Scared Scriptures that prevented a man from marrying more than one woman. I read that in the book “By What Authority”.

 

[jrtrent]

If Joseph Smith truly received this as revelation from God then the Mormons should have stuck with it regardless of the secular consequences. . . Whether it is morally right or wrong is not determined by the state, but by God. Your “canon law” concerning this issue was changed based upon secular law which contradicts the purported revelation received by Joseph Smith. I would be more apt to agree with the “fundamentalist” Mormons on this issue if one truly believes that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. They certainly have more upon which to stand.

The question isn’t just whether Joseph Smith was a prophet, but whether Wilford Woodruff was also a prophet:

" . . . the United States Congress, beginning in 1862, enacted a series of laws against polygamy that became increasingly harsh. By the 1880s many Latter-day Saint men were imprisoned or went into hiding. In 1889 in the face of increasing hardships and the threat of government confiscation of Church property, including temples, Wilford Woodruff, President of the Church at the time, prayed for guidance. He was inspired to issue a document that officially ended the sanction of plural marriage by the Church." lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=9887ec6f164b2110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

So the ending of polygamy was also by revelation, making it a violation of both church law (everywhere) and secular law (providing the place a person resides in has such legislation).

“More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage.” lds.org/ensign/1998/11/what-are-people-asking-about-us

 

[SteveVH]

The question isn’t just whether Joseph Smith was a prophet, but whether Wilford Woodruff was also a prophet:

" . . . the United States Congress, beginning in 1862, enacted a series of laws against polygamy that became increasingly harsh. By the 1880s many Latter-day Saint men were imprisoned or went into hiding. In 1889 in the face of increasing hardships and the threat of government confiscation of Church property, including temples, Wilford Woodruff, President of the Church at the time, prayed for guidance. He was inspired to issue a document that officially ended the sanction of plural marriage by the Church." lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=9887ec6f164b2110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

So the ending of polygamy was also by revelation, making it a violation of both church law (everywhere) and secular law (providing the place a person resides in has such legislation).

“More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage.” lds.org/ensign/1998/11/what-are-people-asking-about-us

Yes, quite convenient. The Mormons are getting the squeeze and so God does a 180 changing his laws to those of man. If Joseph Smith were a true prophet then Wilford Woodruff was not, and vice versa. The truth is that neither of them were which is why they found themselves in this mess in the first place. God has never subjegated his laws to the laws of man. When the early Catholics were being thrown to the lions, God did not change his laws to let them off the hook. They accepted martyrdom rather than obey those laws of men that violated the laws of God.

 

[Gertabelle]

God has never subjegated his laws to the laws of man. When the early Catholics were being thrown to the lions, God did not change his laws to let them off the hook. They accepted martyrdom rather than obey those laws of men that violated the laws of God.

:clapping:

Gertie